3 ms·

The new rule of notability: if it’s no longer in Google’s index, it basically doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipe

by pella 10mo ago

The new rule of notability: if it’s no longer in Google’s index, it basically doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Computing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion... "From a Google search, I wasn’t able to find" appears multiple times on that page alone.

jorams 10mo ago
The relevant part is before that: > This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources. The Google search is the nominator looking for an alternative source that could make it notable, something earlier editors failed to establish.
snvzz 10mo ago
In short, Google decides what stays in Wikipedia. Neat. Not.
- orwin 10mo ago
  Not really,if that thing is cited on notable papers or books, it stays too.
  - snvzz 10mo ago
    Except if Google decides otherwise. And then Wikipedia follows suit.
    - literalAardvark 10mo ago
      No. The Google search wouldn't even have happened had the article had sources listed for the claim.
      - snvzz 10mo ago
        Thus Google gets the final word on whether an article is deleted.
        literalAardvark 10mo ago
        No. The author gets the final word, by including citations as they should.
    - orwin 10mo ago
      I wasn't defending wikipedia or engaging on a penis fight on the internet for no reason. I added context, because it seemed you misunderstood this specific Wikipedia rule, and considering how cryptic wikipedia is, and how often i myself misunderstood rules on wikipedia (or stackoverflow) or even in general, i thought it was the same to you and adding more information would have cleared things out. If your original post does not come from a misunderstanding but some culture war bullshit or whatever, my bad probably, but i'd rather you go on reddit or something else, i'll probably still read you, but assume it's culture war or ragebait and leave you alone.
smonff 10mo ago
This « rule » is infuriating. Google searches are tailored to serve us content that might interest us. In this case, Google search first page returns plenty of notable results for me. Might not be the case for a person interested in geology and dogs, though. How could such a biased thing be a valid WikiPedia criteria?

by pella 10mo ago

jorams 10mo ago

The relevant part is before that: > This article is exclusively sourced on primary sources. The Google search is the nominator looking for an alternative source that could make it notable, something earlier editors failed to establish.

snvzz 10mo ago

In short, Google decides what stays in Wikipedia. Neat. Not.

orwin 10mo ago
Not really,if that thing is cited on notable papers or books, it stays too.
- snvzz 10mo ago
  Except if Google decides otherwise. And then Wikipedia follows suit.
  - literalAardvark 10mo ago
    No. The Google search wouldn't even have happened had the article had sources listed for the claim.
    - snvzz 10mo ago
      Thus Google gets the final word on whether an article is deleted.
      - literalAardvark 10mo ago
        No. The author gets the final word, by including citations as they should.
  - orwin 10mo ago
    I wasn't defending wikipedia or engaging on a penis fight on the internet for no reason. I added context, because it seemed you misunderstood this specific Wikipedia rule, and considering how cryptic wikipedia is, and how often i myself misunderstood rules on wikipedia (or stackoverflow) or even in general, i thought it was the same to you and adding more information would have cleared things out. If your original post does not come from a misunderstanding but some culture war bullshit or whatever, my bad probably, but i'd rather you go on reddit or something else, i'll probably still read you, but assume it's culture war or ragebait and leave you alone.

smonff 10mo ago

This « rule » is infuriating. Google searches are tailored to serve us content that might interest us. In this case, Google search first page returns plenty of notable results for me. Might not be the case for a person interested in geology and dogs, though. How could such a biased thing be a valid WikiPedia criteria?